Parking charge - incorrect payment at car park?

Kaizen2024

Am curious, why do you believe they don’t have ‘Landowner Authority’?

Coupon-mad

Seniors said:

Thank you, I have found the following for the first argument, 

Lack of Landowner Authority

It is my understanding that Smart Parking does not hold a valid and current contract or agreement with the landowner at the site in question. Under the IPC Code of Practice (Section B, Clause 1.1), operators must have written authorisation from the landholder to manage and enforce parking. I request that Smart Parking produce a signed and dated landowner contract that specifically grants them authority to issue PCNs and pursue charges at this location. Without such documentation, this charge should be cancelled.

But I am struggling to find for POFA non compliance, any ideas?

Any ideas? I don't understand: that point is in the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread.

Kaizen2024 said: Am curious, why do you believe they don’t have ‘Landowner Authority’?

I'm guessing you aren't familiar with how Smart Parking approach second stage appeals.

It's not that they haven't got it. It's that they have historically never produced it,

Senorb

Hi I have found the following to use in an appeal to IAS maybe, please let me know if looks good, 

No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet 

PoFA 2012 requirements

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record 

to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and 

conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract. 

PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of 

parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to: 

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of 

parking to which the notice relates;” 

Smart Parking Ltd’s NtK simply claims that the vehicle “entered [xxx] at [xxx] and 

departed at [xxx]”. At no stage does Smart Parking Ltd explicitly specify the “period of 

parking to which the notice relates”, as required by POFA 2012.

Smart Parking Ltd uses ANPR (while failing to comply with the data protection 

'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR) to capture images of vehicles entering 

and leaving the vast unbounded and unmarked area to calculate their length of stay.

Any vehicle passing by will be captured by ANPR. Smart Parking Ltd, however, does 

not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of Smart 

Parking Ltd to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA 

requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result. 

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Smart 

Parking Ltd are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

I require Smart Parking Ltd to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was 

parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the 

NtK.

Senorb

However, upon reading post 3 of newbies thread, it says not to bother with IAS appeal, so should I leave it? The initial advice to me on this thread was to appeal, so I am not sure what to do now please help if possible 

Gr1pr

We would advise that because Smart Parking have transferred from the BPA AOS members list to the IPC AOS members list, it's still worth an appeal based on the advice so far,  but you have to change wordings from BPA to IPC

The advice you read is for all the other IPC members,  but at the moment not for Smart Parking pcns

Try it, nothing to lose 

Senorb

Thank you for your response, I have adapted my response, does it look ok? 

---

**No Evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the IPC Code of Practice**

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out key operational details—such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions, or any site occupier's 'right of veto' or cancellation rights, along with all enforcement times/dates and the full boundary of the site—are vital to establish what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot simply be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to install signage and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent has legal standing or the authority, on the material date, to form contracts with drivers or to enforce parking charges in court in their own name. Legal action regarding land use is generally a matter for the landowner only.

Witness statements are not sufficient evidence of landowner authority. They are often generic, unsigned or pre-signed documents that do not identify the specific site, case, or terms of operation. While such statements might be accepted by the IAS in some cases, in this case, I argue they are not detailed enough to define the nature of services provided by each party in the agreement.

They also fail to clarify essential information such as:

* enforcement periods and times

* exemptions and grace periods (which may exceed IPC minimums)

* site boundaries and designated enforcement zones

* and critically, what restrictions the landowner has authorised to give rise to a charge

Additionally, evidence must be provided to show:

* when the parking contract began

* the duration or renewal terms of the agreement

* the names, job titles, and employing companies of the signatories

* whether those individuals are genuinely authorised to bind the landowner in a legal agreement

The IPC Code of Practice sets out mandatory requirements. I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance with Section A, Clause 2 of the IPC Code, which states:

> **"Operators must have written authorisation from the landholder to manage and enforce parking on the land. The authorisation must include a full description of the land, any conditions or restrictions (including hours of operation and vehicle types), and details of the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved."**

---

**No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK Does Not Meet POFA 2012 Requirements**

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the IPC Code of Practice and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to show that the vehicle was actually *parked* as opposed to merely entering and leaving while reading signs or turning around.

POFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:

> “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the **period of parking** to which the notice relates.”

Smart Parking Ltd’s NtK merely states that the vehicle “entered \[xxx] at \[xxx] and departed at \[xxx]” based on ANPR timestamps. Nowhere is the actual *period of parking* specified, as required.

Smart Parking Ltd uses ANPR technology (and appears to disregard key provisions of the ICO’s Code of Practice on surveillance and data protection). ANPR captures only **entry and exit times**, not the actual duration the vehicle was parked.

Smart Parking Ltd provides no photographic or timestamped evidence of the vehicle *stationary and parked* at any point, nor do they prove the vehicle was parked for the full duration claimed. Any passing vehicle may be logged by ANPR—this does not prove it entered into a parking contract or was parked at all.

It is not within Smart Parking Ltd’s discretion to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” for the legally defined “period of parking” and then hold the keeper liable under POFA. By relying solely on ANPR, Smart Parking Ltd cannot definitively state the period of parking, as is required to establish keeper liability.

I therefore require Smart Parking Ltd to provide actual evidence that the vehicle was parked at the time, date, and location stated on the NtK, for the claimed duration.

Coupon-mad

That is the wrong (and a very weak) rationale for it being non-POFA. Bin that.

Your NTK is non-POFA on dates and possibly lack of Sch 4 paragraph 9 mandatory wording but I'm unsure about the wording omission as I think you only showed us page one?

Senorb

Thank you for your help, unfortunately, being naive, I did not think I had to take a picture of the reverse of the letter, so i have only the first page, in this instance, do I just send the 'No evidence of land authority' point, on its own? Thank you 

Senorb

Maybe I can also add non POFA due to dates as you mentioned, but I am not sure how, I will try to search for something similar in the forum 

Coupon-mad

Senorb said:

Thank you for your help, unfortunately, being naive, I did not think I had to take a picture of the reverse of the letter, so i have only the first page, in this instance, do I just send the 'No evidence of land authority' point, on its own? Thank you 

Of course not.

I already explained the TWO points to include and I told you where to find the POFA one which is already written and is linked in post 3 of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.

I know you went there because you read that the usual advice is not to bother with the IAS. You seem to have stopped reading it at that point, instead of finding and copying the POFA appeal point linked there.